Whilst I sort of agree with you (and also think that IP law is absolutely stupid in many respects at the moment). The shear number of potential infringers that

Whilst I sort of agree with you (and also think that IP law is absolutely stupid in many respects at the moment). The shear number of potential infringers that the internet as a distributed publishing platform has created vs the number of people that can be employed creates a situation where automation is required. I don't see any reason why the legal process encapsulated by the bot can't be the thing that the lawyer signs off on and takes responsibility for. EDIT: Over here in the UK there is precedent that lawyers for e.g. speculative invoice cases involving copyright claims (also know as copyright trolling) can have their right to practise law revoked if the claims are found to be spurious. Maybe lawyers that evaluate DMCA takedown bots should face similar consequences if the bot is too heavy handed? This could create the correct incentive for them to ensure that obvious fair use is accounted for.